Images de page
PDF
ePub

BOOKS, ETC., RECEIVED

America: A Catholic Review (June).

The Ecclesiastical Review (June). U.S.A.

The Rosary Magazine (June). Somerest, Ohio.
The Catholic World (June). New York.

The Austral Light (May). Melbourne.

The Ave Maria (May). Notre Dame, Indiana.

The Irish Monthly (June). Dublin: M. H. Gill & Son, Ltd.
The Catholic Bulletin (June). Dublin: M. H. Gill & Son, Ltd.

The Month (June). London: Longmans.

Études (June). Paris: 12 Rue Oudinot (VII).

Revue Pratique d'Apologétique (June). Paris: Beauchesne.
Revue du Clergé Français (June). Paris: Letouzey et Ané.
Our Boys (June). Edited by the Christian Brothers, Dublin.
The Fortnightly Review (June). St. Louis, Mo.

The Lamp (May). Garrison, N.Y.

Missionary Record of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate (June). Dublin: O Brien Bros., College Street.

The Annals of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart (June). Cork: Guy & Co.

St. Peter's Annual, 1917. Wexford: St. Peter's College.

Studies (June, 1917). Dublin: The Educational Co. of Ireland.

The Liguorian (May, 1917). Oconomowoc, Wisconsin.

A Short History of the Coalville Catholic Mission. By Richard Ellison. Coalville J. W. West.

Leaves of Gold. By Fiona M'Kay. London: Washbourne.

The Seminarian. By Rev. A. Ring. London: Washbourne.

The Summa Theologica (First Number QQ. I-XLVI). Trans. by Fathers

of the English Dominican Province. London: Washbourne.

De l'Yser à l'Argonne. Par Charles Daniélu. Paris: Bloud et Gay. Dans les Flandres. Par D. Bertrand de Laflosse. Paris: Bloud et Gay. Notre-Seigneur Jésus-Christ d'après les Evangiles. Par L.-Cl. Fillion. Paris: Letouzey et Ané.

MOLINA ON POLITICAL SOVEREIGNTY

BY REV. LEWIS WATT, S.J., B.Sc. (Econ.)

IT may well be that practical men, conscious of the urgency of the many political problems of our day, view with some impatience the discussion between Catholic philosophers as to the primary subject' of political authority. They may think the whole question too academic for them to waste their time over it, when there are pressing social needs to be faced and disposed of. After all (they may say) both schools of thought arrive at the same practical results: both maintain the divine sanction of legitimate authority, while rejecting the Jacobean doctrine of Divine Right; both insist on the duty of governments to govern in the interests of the Commonwealth, while rejecting Rousseau's theory of the inalienability of the sovereignty of the people. Why all this pother about political metaphysics? What does it matter whether the sovereign received his power from God through the nation, or is designated by force of circumstances, receiving his power thereupon from God directly? Let us put such useless questions aside; and get on with the work of building up a better social order.

But the practical man, arguing thus, falls into a serious error, and one not uncommon in practical men: the error,. that is, of thinking that theory is a mere efflorescence of practice, a sort of intellectual ornament which is becoming, perhaps, but by no means necessary. Whereas the truth is that theories are far more powerful than practice, and stretch their long tentacles throughout the ages, creeping into men's minds almost unnoticed and modifying the most venerable institutions by a sort of psychological sapping and mining. The revolutionary movement of last century, the present war, Christianity itself are evident examples of this universal truth.

If theory is so important, it cannot be a matter of no concern to us that our theory should be correct, especially FIFTH SERIES, VOL. X-AUGUST, 1917

when it deals with the very foundations of social organization. What, then, was the reason which moved certain Catholic thinkers of last century to abandon the traditional teaching of the Schools on the question of the origin of civil authority? One does not need to read far into their writings to discover that they were aghast at the disruption of the social order which followed on the acceptance of revolutionary political philosophy. Any theory that seemed to favour the sinister doctrine of the Sovereignty of the People became, at least, suspect to them: and though they took pains to distinguish the scholastic teaching from that of Rousseau and his followers, yet they felt that there was a danger lest the unthinking might confuse the two. Consequently, they cast about for some alternative explanation which could lend no handle to the disturbers of the social order; and so, from the time of Haller and Taparelli, we have a number of new theories propounded, none of which have commanded universal agreement even amongst those who are not prepared to accept the scholastic teaching.

No one can fail to appreciate the motives which led these writers to take the course they did, though one may be permitted to believe that they went too far, and in avoiding Scylla encountered Charybdis. By abandoning the scholastic position, they seemed to themselves to be strengthening the position of sovereigns, whereas in reality they were weakening it. No one could be a stronger opponent of the French Revolution than Edmund Burke, no one could have a higher appreciation of the value of stability in the State, and yet he found no sounder principle on which to base the authority of the Sovereign than that of an original pact, express or implied, with the sanction of natural justice, binding the nation and its ruler. For what more compelling appeal can one make to a nation than that of justice? Have we not seen the power of that word to call nations to arms? And is not Justice the watchword of every social and political reform ? If our teaching is that sovereign and people are bound together by mutual obligations of justice which neither can evade without doing grievous wrong to the other party, to the moral order and to God, we are laying far sounder foundations than if we teach that a man or group

[merged small][ocr errors]

may become lawful sovereign by a wonderful variety of what may be called providential accidents.

We have been encouraged by the Church to follow the teachings of the scholastics so far as we can, without running counter to the established truths of later scientific inquiry. Their tenets as to the origin of civil authority should, therefore, arouse at least sympathetic curiosity; and if it be found that not only are they essentially correct in their reasoning, but that they accord with the best traditions of our history and furnish a sound guarantee of political stability without excluding social and constitutional progress, there is every reason for readiness to accept them as common ground in Catholic political philosophy. The importance of possessing such accepted first principles must be evident to all who have remarked the growing activity of individuals and groups in urging their own programmes for national and political reconstruction, all propounding, or at the least assuming, some philosophical view of the basis of the State. The traditional Catholic teaching can hold its own against any of these newcomers, both in the tribunal of reason and of practical expediency. What its principles are will appear in the course of this article,1 the purpose of which is to give a brief account of the theory of the origin of sovereignty found in the treatise De Justitia et Jure of one who had no small influence on the social philosophy of Suarez, Luis de Molina. Best known by his teaching on Grace, he is a profound and comprehensive thinker on matters of jurisprudence. He was born in Spain in 1535, entered the Society of Jesus at eighteen, and later professed philosophy at Coimbra and theology at Evora. He was afterwards appointed to a newly-established chair of moral philosophy at Madrid, but died only six months later, on October 12, 1600. His political philosophy is contained in the treatise just mentioned, and chiefly in the second Tractatus of the same, from Disp. 21 onwards. On some points his treatment is fuller than that of Suarez, perhaps because the latter designedly condensed such topics as had been sufficiently dealt with by Molina: but his general principles are those of the School, being based on the

1 See also 'The Right of Sovereignty,' by Rev. J. Byrne O'Connell, in the I. E. RECORD (April, 1917, Fifth Series, vol. ix. pp. 265 et seq.) ; and Suarez and the Sovereignty of the People,' by the present writer, in Studies, July, 1916.

reasoning of Aristotle and confirmed by Scripture and appeals to the actual experience of nations. He refers occasionally to St. Thomas, but much more frequently to later scholastics, such as Soto and Vittoria.1 He seems to have been less influenced by the Civilians and Roman lawyers than Suarez was, and perhaps this is the reason of his making no explicit use of the word 'contract' or some synonym in this connexion, though the notion of the devolution by the community of its right of sovereignty upon an individual or group, with resulting mutual obligations of justice, is as clear as one could wish.

The first principle of his theory, as of Aristotle's, is the social nature of man. Primary in nature as in time is the economic society,' the family, composed of parents, children, and sometimes servants. In this society, nature clearly designates the paterfamilias as head by the essential relation in which he stands to the other members. Such a community is not sufficient to satisfy the nature and needs of men, for whereas the brute creation has been provided with natural clothing, suitable food, arms of offence and defence, and instincts adequate for their preservation, man is practically destitute of all these, save in so far as by his labour he adapts his environment to his requirements; and for this task, the strength and faculties of one man, and even of one family, are insufficient if it is to be performed satisfactorily. The co-operation of many families is necessary, so that by a suitable division of labour they máy supply themselves with what is necessary for daily life in the matter of food, clothing, housing, medicine, and so on. Take, for example (says Molina), the single case of bread. Consider all that is necessary to its manufacture. There is the ground to be prepared, the seed to be sown, the wheat to be harvested, threshed, ground, and baked; nor is this all, for some one must have made the plough, mill, oven, and all the other instruments of production which were used. How can this be adequately performed without the co-operation of many, specializing in the different processes? Furthermore, he continues, all these processes demand education, if they are to be properly

1 Francis of Vittoria, d. 1546, an eminent Dominican, who professed theology at Valladolid and Salamanca. He inspired Scholasticism with new life. His only published work is the Relectiones (published 1604). One of his many illustrious pupils was Dominic Soto (d. 1560), who, before joining the Dominican Order, professed at Alcalà, and later himself taught at Salamanca. Soto was a prominent figure at the Council of Trent.

« PrécédentContinuer »